Content deleted Content added
SMcCandlish (talk | contribs) m link fix |
SMcCandlish (talk | contribs) Blanking my evidence pile; doing so may help Darkfrog24's next request for reinstatement focus on the future instead of the past. |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{discussion top}} |
|||
== SMcCandlish's ArbCom evidence relating to Darkfrog24 (as used instead at the "[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive188#Dicklyon and Darkfrog24|Dicklyon and Darkfrog24]]" AE request) == |
== SMcCandlish's ArbCom evidence relating to Darkfrog24 (as used instead at the "[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive188#Dicklyon and Darkfrog24|Dicklyon and Darkfrog24]]" AE request) == |
||
{{moved discussion from|User:SMcCandlish/ArbCom evidence relating to Darkfrog24|reason=[[WP:POLEMIC]] prohibits this being kept forever in my userspace, but it's among the evidence relied upon in the "Dicklyon and Darkfrog24" request, so needs to be preserved somewhere. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 15:14, 26 January 2016 (UTC)}} |
{{moved discussion from|User:SMcCandlish/ArbCom evidence relating to Darkfrog24|reason=[[WP:POLEMIC]] prohibits this being kept forever in my userspace, but it's among the evidence relied upon in the "Dicklyon and Darkfrog24" request, so needs to be preserved somewhere. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 15:14, 26 January 2016 (UTC)}} |
||
{{notice|title=Blanked by author, in the interests of looking to the future not the past.|text= |
|||
[[Image:Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement.svg|thumb|300px|[[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|We should]] stay in the top three sections of this hierarchy. Darkfrog24's debate tactics almost entirely fall within the four lower ones.]] |
|||
Darkfrog24 seems especially focused on trying to refute points in this evidence, and is distressed that it's so visible on this page, instead of focusing on what ArbCom/AE wants to see in the way of "yes, I understand what it will take to get my block lifted". So, I'm blanking my evidence file. I think this is consistent with [[WP:POLEMIC]]; there's no reason to keep this around indefinitely in such a visible way. If it's needed for later review, it can simply be pulled out of the page history.<p>I wish Darkfrog24 well in their future, constructive endeavors elsewhere in the project. (As I said in the original AE and several followup discussions, I did not think a block was the ideal solution, just a topic-ban, since the editor has been productive elsewhere).<br /><span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 14:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)</p> |
|||
<small>This is a somewhat incompletely sorted diff pile-up, the result of several abortive preparations for [[WP:RFARB]], [[WP:AE]], [[WP:ANI]], and other [[WP:Noticeboard]]s. I'm dumping it all in here at once as a reference source relating to the ongoing [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive188#Dicklyon and Darkfrog24|WP:AE#Dicklyon and Darkfrog24]] request filed by RGloucester (and the related [[Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_57#NPOV and information pages|WP:NPOVN#NPOV and information pages]] request filed by Darkfrog24), since it's looks like there's serious consideration of a topic ban, and it will probably be closed soon. If AE will deal with this now, that actually obviates any need to pursue any of this further, much less in a full-blown, time-sucking ArbCom case, though this is enough evidence for one. The sad thing is, this is only about 1/12 of the evidence that could be gathered; it only covers the recent incidents and early origins of the editor's disruptive patterns on a single issue.</small> |
|||
}} |
|||
I realize everyone hates style disputes, but this is a behavioral matter in a content dispute that simply happens to be on a style topic, a one-editor [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]] being waged across [[WP:POLICY]] pages, talkspace, articles, and even multiple WMF projects. This latest round is part of a 6+ year [[WP:NOTADVOCACY|advocacy]]/soapbox/great-wrongs campaign by one user to get rid of [[MOS:LQ|logical quotation]] (LQ) on Wikipedia, by deleting its mention entirely or by falsely equating it to British quotation style so this editor can try to convince people it's a [[WP:ENGVAR]] matter and that some terrible injustice is being done to Americans. |
|||
The entire basis of DF24's position is that because some American sources sometimes conflate multiple quotation styles (logical and various British/Commonwealth styles) that they {{em|are}} identical, no matter what, including no matter what sources define them distinctly. The irrationality of this is mind-boggling, like insisting that a zoology source that glosses over and conflates two plant species outweighs all botany sources that clearly define and distinguish them in detail. DF24 has made it clear that they pursue this in hopes that all puncutation matters will be declared [[WP:ENGVAR]] variables, so DF24 can punctuate any way they want to, despite WP using logical quotation for a reason: It is more accurate, and accuracy matters. |
|||
The editor ignores all sourcing they don't agree with, engages in endless [[WP:FILIBUSTER]] and [[WP:ICANTHEARYOU]] behavior, and has even started deleting sources from related articles and inserting PoV material from self-published blogs in their place [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quotation_marks_in_English&type=revision&diff=679452530&oldid=679421951] over multiple editors' objections, as well as engaging in patent [[WP:NOR|original research]], by cherry-picking sources, citing sources that are not authoritative for what they're being called upon to source, and trying to twist sources' wording to mean whatever DF24 wants them to mean. But this is only part of the problem. |
|||
The editor's block log consists of blocks for tendentious [[WP:OWN]]y behavior at a particular page repeatedly, including both short-term and long-term editwarring, and editwarring when already under the microscope. It's the same pattern, except this time it's spread topically to multiple pages. The editor obviously knows they are not immune to repercussions, so why is the same pattern arising again? |
|||
I have pulled together a lot of other diffs, and only begun organizing them, much less pruning them to the most salient, but these seem the most relevant, and should surely be enough for action to be taken. At several places herein, I've annotated where I've skipped adding a large number of additional supporting diffs. DF24 has previously tried to CYA-away various of these concerns, but no single-diff "drop" in this bucket matters. It's the undeniable and consistent pattern as a whole that's the problem. |
|||
=== Darkfrog24 continuing to cast aspersions and impute motives to other editors === |
|||
Despite multiple warnings, including from administrators, and the delivery of a [[Template:Ds/alert]] about it, this is an ongoing pattern of DF24 ignoring [[WP:ARBATC]]. The pattern consists of psychological projection of DF24's beliefs about other editors' mentalities and trustworthiness onto them as if objectively factual. This is the #1 thing that ARBATC was enacted to prevent, as made clear at [[WP:ARBATC#All parties reminded]], and such behavior remains the primary reason editors are subjected to discretionary sanctions under ARBATC, but DF24 is never restrained in any way for it. (And this is in addition to numerous cases of using unctuous, faux-polite language to deliver uncivil comments and aspersions; that alone would be another whole page of diffs). See also [[WP:SANCTIONGAMING]], at points #2 'Walking back', #3: 'Borderlining', and #5 'Playing victim'. The crafty use of unctuous language, that can later be re-spun as not really meaning what it clearly meant, does not make this behavior okay, especially when the primary use of this technique by this editor is to deliver personal attacks in one breath while complaining of uncivil behavior in another. |
|||
{{collapse top|left=y|title=Diffs of recent examples}} |
|||
* 2015-12-22: Vague aspersion-casting, in a [[WP:BITE]] manner to new editor, about MoS-related RfCs being "''really'' nasty" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Darkfrog24&diff=next&oldid=696409354]. |
|||
* 2015-12-22: Direct accusation, against multiple editors of [[WP:BULLY]] with no evidence. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Darkfrog24&diff=next&oldid=696385953] This accusation was repeated several times, even after it was objected to, and this is not the first time. I can provide additional diffs of this behavior on request, but will need time to dig them back up again. |
|||
* 2015-12-22: Conspiratorial fantasy about questionable-faith old-school Wikipedians who are supposedly against American English "rules" and "correct"ness [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Darkfrog24&diff=next&oldid=696384745], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Darkfrog24&diff=next&oldid=696441736] Specifically projects implausible motivations: "You see, lots of computer programmers like British style because computers treat words and punctuation as literal strings (the human visual system doesn't). That means a lot of ''early'' Wikipedians really really preferred British style because it's what they were used to from work." "The only real effect of this rule is to annoy people". This has nothing at all to do with WP's rationale for using logical quotation (which is simply the [[MOS:PMC|principle of minimal change]]). DF24 actually self-contradicts on this point at whim, though, and otherwise asserts that WP uses "British" quotation as a balance to using single-inside-double "American" quotation mark order. Whatever legend best suits DF24's temporary argument needs. |
|||
* 2015-12-03: '''Explicit and quite recent refusal to assume good faith in MoS discussions, across the board:''' {{tq|"I usually just took people's word for it that they'd seen sources, and I don't any more."}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&diff=prev&oldid=693362744] Note that it began as an attack on one editor in particular, and then was generalized to suspicion against all other editors commenting on MoS matters. |
|||
* 2015-11-28 "it sounds like what you'd want this page to do is help turn away people who don't like existing consensus or don't understand the consensus process and are proposing unconsidered changes." [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AManual_of_Style&type=revision&diff=692864202&oldid=692834464] |
|||
* 2015-11-28 "my attempt to AGF, in this case the assumption that you mean exactly what you say and aren't hiding or talking around anything yourself. However, I've guessed that it's also possible that what you really don't like about this is something else: You don't like the ''idea'' that sources are important to the MoS or the suggestion that we shouldn't do whatever we want or just make up rules based on whatever looks good to us, even if it contradicts those rules, and you feel that listing external support for the MoS legitimizes this idea." [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&diff=next&oldid=692864202] |
|||
* 2015-11-27: "you find discussions more convincing than sources" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&diff=next&oldid=692731771] (an especially ironic comment, in a consensus discussion about a guideline page which is not an article subject to [[WP:V]]). |
|||
* 2015-11-27: "Some people don't care about sources and some people don't care about discussions" and "SmC has just demonstrated something very important: '''Some people care about sources and other people care about discussions.''' ... there are two such different mindsets" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AManual_of_Style&type=revision&diff=692677715&oldid=692658618]. I never "demonstrated" any such thing, and oppose this false dichotomy entirely. |
|||
* 2015-09-15: "SMcCandlish says 'disruption' when he really means 'disagrees with me.{{'"}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=next&oldid=679502402] |
|||
* 2015-09-15: Psychologically projective attack against opponents as "a clique of linguistic revisionists ... [who] prefer to believe that 'British' isn't really British", etc., etc. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=next&oldid=679500813] |
|||
* 2015-09-04: "The bottom line: SMC believes one thing, but the sources say another. I believe the sources. SMC doesn't like that." [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FEdit_warring&type=revision&diff=679500426&oldid=679497739]. DF24 "improved" this by making it even more pointed a personal attack: "The bottom line: SMC really doesn't like it when people don't agree with him." [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=next&oldid=679500426] |
|||
{{collapse bottom}} |
|||
I could diff a dozen more statements like this since these, many made after additional ARBATC warnings, as if DF24 is daring anyone to take action. The consistent pattern is of the form: ''I care about sources and everyone else is just making things up or can't see the truth.'' What's really happening is DF24 is trying to impose external sourcing on internal policy discussions, ignoring sources they don't like in the process, and engaging in OR with regard to the ones they do like, all in an attempt to get their way, almost 7 years in a row, against a consensus that has not changed despite their constant, polemic activism about it. |
|||
The fact of the matter is that the #1 source of disruption and dispute at MOS and related pages is Darkfrog24, on this issue and many others. The style guide exists to resolve disputes and provide a consistent reading experience. It does not exist as a playground for someone to "never give up, never surrender" on various style nitpicks. Everyone else in the world seems to understand that publications have [[house style]] guides, which are necessarily compromises between various available style options, and that writers for those publications agree to adhere to them, or will be edited after-the-fact to do so. DF24 falsely claims that quotation style "it is the single most frequently challenged part of the MoS." [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Darkfrog24&diff=next&oldid=696384745] They correctly note that the issue comes up "at least once a year", but these are almost always questions about why WP uses a particular style, which DF24 then leverages into a campaign platform for the same tired battlecry. |
|||
=== Sustained editwarring against logical quotation at MOS and in mainspace === |
|||
This is just one episode among many, from September 2015. In its details it is not particularly different from any other, so there is no need to produce a section of diffs like this for every such incident. They arise about 1–3 times per year with this editor, mostly about style matters (though see previous blocks), and most often about quotation punctuation. |
|||
When I asked for page protection of MOS to put a halt to the editwarring, the responding admin suggested taking it straight to [[WP:AE]] instead [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&diff=next&oldid=679090830]. |
|||
{{collapse top|left=y|title=Diffs of editwarring and related disruption, in newer to older order}} |
|||
* 19:13, 22 December 2015: DF24 accuses everyone else at MoS of being a liar: "The others told the truth when they said it's been talked about a lot but they failed to mention that ..." [false claim elided] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Darkfrog24&diff=next&oldid=696384745]. |
|||
* 03:24, 5 September 2015: DF24 reverted [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AManual_of_Style&type=revision&diff=679529096&oldid=679527396] me rescinding [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&diff=prev&oldid=679523120] and archiving [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&diff=next&oldid=679523120] my own RfC (because Darkfrog24 editwarred [see below] to trainwreck it by hiding the Comments section under a text-wall regurgitating all their already-disproven nonsense). The whole "RfC" by this point consisted of DF24 recycling the same [[Signal-to-noise ratio|noise]] over and over again in a [[WP:IDHT]] pattern, and me trying in good faith to respond to it to with no result but more IDHT. DF24 then resumed this stream of [[Fear, uncertainty and doubt|FUD]]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&diff=next&oldid=679529096], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&diff=next&oldid=679529639], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&diff=next&oldid=679530111], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&diff=next&oldid=679530329] ... Virtually every word of it is a distortion, fiction, evasion, projection, gaslighting, handwaving, or rehash. |
|||
* 02:28, 5 September 2015: DF24 refused to acknowledge dispute [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Quotation_marks_in_English&diff=prev&oldid=679523455] (multiple editors raised policy-based objections to DK24's UNDUE/POV/SPS addition to the [[Quotation marks in English]] article, as detailed below), and DF24 (in same diff) accuses one of bad faith for having objected. It's clear that this editor is going to [[WP:OWN]] all of these pages or die trying. |
|||
* 20:38, 4 September 2015: At [[Quotation marks in English]], DF24 reverted inline RS tag [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quotation_marks_in_English&diff=prev&oldid=679483624] (without resolving the dispute, just asserting without demonstrating the author is exempt from [[WP:SPS]]). |
|||
* 17:00, 4 September 2015: At same article, reverted inline dispute tag [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quotation_marks_in_English&type=revision&diff=679452530&oldid=679421951] without doing anything to resolve the dispute, just engaging in more IDHT and OR; in same edit, deleted a reliable and properly cited source (neutral and reputably published article about logical quotation by a language professor and well-known writer on English language usage, that was used for multiple citations in the article, which DF broke by doing so), and replaced it with an anti-LQ rant from someone's "Daily Writing Tips" blog. Classic [[WP:UNDUE]] and [[WP:POV]]. This should have been reverted, but I didn't want to do it myself, lest I be seen as editwarring, too. It was not resolved until 17 January 2016, by someone else [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quotation_marks_in_English&type=revision&diff=700295794&oldid=700293869] (third third editor to object), assuming DF24 doesn't re-revert again. Note also that DF24 attempted a bunch of gaslighting about this, trying to convince objectors to this move that DF24 did it because {{em|we}} wanted it it done [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AManual_of_Style&type=revision&diff=679529639&oldid=679529096]; nothing could be further from the truth, as our objections obviously made clear. |
|||
* 16:42, 4 September 2015: At [[WT:MOS]], DF24 tried to hijack and disrupt [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AManual_of_Style&type=revision&diff=679449556&oldid=679448519] an RfC, by inserting a huge new subtopic between the RfC and its comments section, making it unlikely anyone would comment (and the insertion consisted almost entirely of rehash that had been addressed numerous times in the prior three days). Then inserted into the RfC itself a contrary opinion [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&diff=next&oldid=679449712] (the same factually incorrect [[WP:OR]] and [[WP:POV]] that the editor has been relentlessly pushing against all facts, sources and reason during this editwarring spree, and for many years more tendentiously). I moved this to the Discussion section of the RfC. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AManual_of_Style&type=revision&diff=679462388&oldid=679462079] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&diff=next&oldid=679462388]. Darkfrog24 editwarred to put it back where it was improperly inserted [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AManual_of_Style&type=revision&diff=679465061&oldid=679464792]. I would have had to violate [[WP:3RR]] to fix it myself. The RfC was later administratively closed early as "unproductive feuding".[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AManual_of_Style&type=revision&diff=679709946&oldid=679681918] This is a "win" for DF24, since an open RfC would never have sustained their OR. |
|||
* 13:09, 4 September 2015, MOS: DF24 deleted "logical quotation" from [[MOS:LQ]] for umpteenth time [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AManual_of_Style&type=revision&diff=679419395&oldid=679385407]. I attempted a compromise [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AManual_of_Style&type=revision&diff=679431282&oldid=679430672] (one I'd tried before, but which DF also deleted). Nothing will satisfy DF24 but [[WP:WINNING|unconditional surrender]]. |
|||
* 23:06, 3 September 2015: DF24 Deleted "logical quotation" again [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AManual_of_Style&type=revision&diff=679336455&oldid=679281039], despite multiple editors having objected. |
|||
* 13:09, 3 September 2015: DF24 attempted to hijack [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AManual_of_Style&type=revision&diff=679258974&oldid=679258221] a clarification proposal I made about logical quotation by changing it to have "British" in it, and making it about DF's own proposal, already being discussed in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_170#Example_sentence_for_editors_unfamiliar_with_British.2Flogical_style its own thread]. |
|||
* 13:00, 3 September 2015: Deleted "logical quotation" again [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AManual_of_Style&type=revision&diff=679257838&oldid=679216621]; another editor reverted [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style&diff=next&oldid=679258901]. Here, DF24 implemented their own proposal without consensus, while it [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&oldid=679419856#Example_sentence_for_editors_unfamiliar_with_British.2Flogical_style] and my alternative [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&oldid=679258136#Avoiding_further_confusion_on_use_of_logical_quotation] were still under discussion. Rather than revert or even object, I merged them into an RfC to seek compromise and community consensus [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&oldid=679430733]. This is the RfC DF24 rapidly derailed (see above) rather than risk not getting exactly what they wanted. |
|||
* 13:55, 2 September 2015: Inserted the false claim, that logical and British quotation are identical, into [[wikt:logical quotation]] [https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=logical_quotation&type=revision&diff=34329746&oldid=28896531], and reverted me when I corrected it [https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=logical_quotation&type=revision&diff=34353851&oldid=34352157]; DF24 added nothing but cherry-picked sources that do not distinguish, while the actual distinction has been very well sourced, and DF just ignores that. I've since then tried a factual compromise version that actually says what the sources support, not what DF wishes they did [https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=logical_quotation&diff=next&oldid=34353851]. |
|||
* 23:24, 1 September 2015: DF24 deleted "logical quotation" (and made undiscussed, incautious changes that introduced an error) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AManual_of_Style&type=revision&diff=679008549&oldid=679006854]; I partially reverted [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style&diff=next&oldid=679008549] on the basis that there was no consensus for this deletion, and fixed the error, noting what it was. I then attempted a compromise edit [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AManual_of_Style&type=revision&diff=679215790&oldid=679214717] to address DF's ostensible issue. As usual, the compromise was rebuffed, and DF24's editwarring continued unabated, as detailed above. |
|||
* 22:55, 1 September 2015: DF24 falsely equated British and logical quotation: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AManual_of_Style&type=revision&diff=679004892&oldid=679003981]; DF has been shown for many years that this is factually wrong, since it comes up in every single "edition" of this debate, starting in 2009: An editor explained the difference between British and logical quotation [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&diff=prev&oldid=293304786]; DF24 agreed and wanted MoS to make it clear they were different [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&diff=next&oldid=293437047]; someone else chimed in about how different they are [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&diff=prev&oldid=293509408], and DF agreed, saying they'd found sourcing that said so [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&diff=prev&oldid=293350238]. DF now repudiates their agreement and the desire to see MoS be clear on this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&diff=next&oldid=679314528], but they can't repudiate the fact that they personally sourced that the two styles are different. This is just one of a large number of such discussions on the matter over the last 6+ years, with similar evidence in them, including numerous sources DF repeatedly pretends do not exist or do not say what they say, but I needn't belabor the point. |
|||
* 14:35, 1 September 2015: DF24 deleted "logical quotation", in a series of edits, compressed into one diff here [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AManual_of_Style&type=revision&diff=678934464&oldid=678772225], making a large number of undiscussed changes, and introduced a serious error to one of MoS's guidelines. I very carefully, in a multi-stage edit, undid only the obviously anti-consensus or error-injecting parts, fixed typos in the new material, and left the rest of DF's changes alone; compressed into one diff: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AManual_of_Style&type=revision&diff=679003981&oldid=678998933]. It should be noted that this section of MoS has a big HTML comment in it no one can miss: "EDITORS PLEASE NOTE: Changes to this section may escalate into heated dispute. Please consider raising any proposed changes for discussion and consensus-building on the talk page before editing." DF24 routinely lectures other editors about making undiscussed changes to MoS, and is insistent to the point of disruption on [[WP:BRD]] being followed to their own satisfaction [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_166#Improving_examples_in_.22Quotations.22:_.22Point_of_View.22_section] (a case illustrating the lengths to which DF24 will go to try to force others to "source the MoS" and to prevent someone they oppose from getting their way, no matter how trivial the matter is. |
|||
*Diffs of edit-warring warnings: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AManual_of_Style&type=revision&diff=679261679&oldid=679261377], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AManual_of_Style&type=revision&diff=679462388&oldid=679462079] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AManual_of_Style&type=revision&diff=679245606&oldid=679227486] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AManual_of_Style&type=revision&diff=679380529&oldid=679336455], and others included in the sequence above. |
|||
{{collapse bottom}} |
|||
Concerned about AE's tendency to bring the hammer down, and seeking instead a community consensus review of these behavior patterns, I opened the matter at a regular noticeboard, [[WP:ANEW]]. But the matter was closed there without resolution by an AE admin whose only concern appeared to be shutting both parties up rather than addressing the underlying issue. This un-remedy, which was lopsidedly punitive toward me, the filer, was vacated by [[WP:AN]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FArchive275&type=revision&diff=689083315&oldid=688821482], retroactively [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASMcCandlish&type=revision&diff=689083933&oldid=688654463], but I did not renew the ANEW matter because it was stale and archived by then. The warning received by DF24 from the same admin [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADarkfrog24&type=revision&diff=679709312&oldid=679503200] was {{em|not}} vacated but has been ignored with impunity by that editor. |
|||
=== NOTHERE / NOT#ADVOACY / SOAPBOX / BATTLEGROUND / SPA evidence === |
|||
While ArbCom, AE, and various noticeboards mostly concern themselves with immediate evidence of an issue to address preventatively (i.e., a hot dispute to pour cold water on), long-term disruptive behavior is in overwhelming evidence here and must be examined over several years. I'm just scratching the surface here, tying the earliest of Darkfrog24's forays into into this topic, to their recent flareups. I've skipped around a dozen intervening cases of near-identical protracted incidents of [[WP:GREATWRONGS]] campaigning by the same editor, but can dig up that huge pile of diffs if it's required. |
|||
The upshot is that, despite various bits of productive editing, Darkfrog24's primary ''modus operandi'' on Wikipedia appears to be treating Wikipedia as an Internet debate forum and a platform for nationalistic style-related [[WP:NOT#ADVOACY|advocacy]], a [[WP:NOTHERE]] pattern of [[WP:SOAPBOX]]ing and [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]]ing that is similar to [[WP:SPA]], aside from taking breaks from it when not getting their way and returning to it later when there may be new [[WP:PARENT]]s to ask. And this is just only quotation marks. The editor shows a similar, if less excessive, pattern with regard to various other style matters. |
|||
{{Collapse top|left=y|title=Diffs showing years of singleminded pursuit of nationalism-based style campaigning}} |
|||
* Recently (2015-12-29): Editor claims to have looked at {{em|every single}} Article of the Day for an entire year to gather evidence against LQ. This is strong evidence of [[WP:NOTHERE]]. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&diff=next&oldid=697286261] |
|||
* One (2015-09-04) of many statements by DF24 that indicate belief the editor is fighting the good fight against a shadowy conspiracy/cabal: "The background here is that a clique of linguistic revisionists at WP:MoS have decided that they like British punctuation more than American ...." Includes additional psychological projection "Many of them prefer to believe that 'British' isn't really British, so ... etc., etc. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=next&oldid=679500813]. Another (2015-12-22), suggesting that it's a bunch of "computer programmers [who] like British style" and who rely on an RfC with "such a biased text that it was hard to tell what we were talking about" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Darkfrog24&diff=next&oldid=696384745] (no one else seemed to be confused, and as shown elsewhere, DF24 has resolved to simply derail any RfC that doesn't look like it will conclude DF24's preferred way). Another (2015-11-26): Things DF24 disagrees with are "partially based" "on the whims and arbitrary personal preferences of a clique", except of course where DF24's [[WP:OWN]]ed page [[MOS:SUPPORTS]] sources what DF24 wants sourced the way DF24 wants it sourced [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AManual_of_Style&type=revision&diff=692486327&oldid=692482122]. |
|||
* Statement (there are others, I just happened to run across this one) that indicates this is a [[Long game|long-game]] advocacy campaign: "I most certainly have not abandoned proper American punctuation. ... I am as stout an advocate of American punctuation as ever." [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AManual_of_Style&type=revision&diff=293540770&oldid=293538320] This is about {{em|belief}}, about {{em|faith}} in what is {{em|right}}, from a purely nationalist perspective, actual linguistics be damned. |
|||
* A major part of the conspiracy theory is that "logical quotation" is some kind of insult aimed at Americans [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&diff=next&oldid=293417983]. It doesn't matter how many times it's pointed out that the name (a [[term of art]] which comes from external sources, not a value description made up by Wikipedia), refers to the internal logic of the punctuation method, and has nothing to do with whether other styles are "illogical".[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&diff=prev&oldid=293417983] Objecting to the name is like objecting to the name of the zodiac sign Cancer because it sounds like a disease. |
|||
* DF24 began trying to directly "source the MoS" in a [[WP:POLEMIC]] manner, using external sources for or against internal consensus decisions in May–June 2009. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style&diff=prev&oldid=293156720], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&diff=prev&oldid=294069403]. When this penchant is turned about on this editor by others [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&diff=prev&oldid=293610782], DF24 insists that their own assumptions are sufficient [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&diff=prev&oldid=293625372], an obvious double standard. It has continued to the present. |
|||
* The user announced on their first day as a registered user that they are "a grammar stickler", and promoted a specific style guide (the ''[[MLA Style Manual]]'', for US-based liberal arts & humanities journals) and English variety (American) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Darkfrog24&oldid=91274243]. This is fine in and of itself, but does not appear in a vacuum. In particular, the refusal to acknowledge that the ''MLA'' (and later the ''[[Chicago Manual of Style]]'' [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style&diff=prev&oldid=293158327], the obsolete 14th edition of which DF24 consistently cites as if authoritative on everything) are not the only reliable sources on American English usage, that this usage varies by context, and that WP is written in a hybrid style, not content-forked along US vs. British lines, has been central to the problems caused by this editor. |
|||
* Darkfrog24's very first post to [[WT:MOS]], in 2009, [https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/usersearch.py?page=Wikipedia_talk%3AManual_of_Style&server=enwiki&startdate=20090529194430&max=500&name=Darkfrog24] was advocacy against logical quotation [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=293155119&diff=prev], though previously acknowledging and "enforcing" the consensus for it at articles [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bunches&diff=prev&oldid=286224275]. The editor immediately began making {{em|subjective}} pleas about the the alleged grace, copy-editing ease, and cultural suitability of typesetters' quotation [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&diff=prev&oldid=297369194], which have nothing to do with Wikipedia policy or consensus (nor even with external sourcing on style questions). The [[WP:IDHT]] problem begins this early. In the same diff, see the editor responding to the observation that WP doesn't have to use the US government's favored punctuation, a concession the editor has backpedalled from ever since. |
|||
* As early as May 2009, before the diffs above, Darkfrog24 conceded that ENGVAR was a spelling convention that did not cover punctuation, and sought to {{em|extend}} it to punctuation [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&diff=prev&oldid=293155119], on a "parallel construction" basis [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&diff=prev&oldid=293210762] which mistakes superficial similarity for a rationale. Consensus has never concluded to do so, and objections were raised from day one against this idea [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&diff=next&oldid=294740361], since many of MOS's punctuation "rules" explicitly avoid doing so, including: terminating most non-initialism abbreviations with points (against British style), using double then single quotation mark order (against British academic style), etc., etc. Very shortly, DF24 switches to insisting that this transition has already occurred, that's it's already accepted that MoS treats spelling and punctuation the same, and that they're both matters of "right" and "wrong", neither of which is a correct assessment [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&diff=prev&oldid=294847834]. Consensus, it would seem, is what DF24 asserts it is, not what it actually is. Six and a half years is too long for someone to be fighting such a fight across various WP pages. |
|||
* DF24 even tried in June 2009 to "instruct" newcomers to the debate on what its scope was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&diff=prev&oldid=294071191], despite most editors in the discussion concluding that DF24 was not getting it. This one-sided preamble asserts various false facts based on DF24's assumptions, PoV, and OR, and they are same positions the editor has pursued, in the face of all evidence and consensus against them, all the way up early 2016 (so far). |
|||
* The editor conceded as early as June 2009 that "I guess people favor what they're used to" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&diff=prev&oldid=297347960]; that "Wikipedia editors are free to type in whatever they want and other editors are free to replace that text with more formal, encyclopedic writing and punctuation" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&diff=prev&oldid=297348577]; that WP addressed quotation mark style for its own internal reasons and needs [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style&diff=prev&oldid=293155909]; and that we should avoiding nationalistic terms, as divisive [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&diff=prev&oldid=293155119]. When they did not get their way on the matter, all of this was unfortunately turned on its ear, and in practice has meant Darkfrog24 advancing their own preferred punctuation style against WP consensus, relentlessly. |
|||
* Also since this period, Darkfrog24 has denied (in hyperbolic terms) that WP actually has a consensus to use logical quotation [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&diff=prev&oldid=297347960], despite it being in place since 2005 and the subject of repeated discussions and challenges (mostly from DF24 and another editor or two at any given time), none of which have come close to a change in consensus on how to punctuate quotations in the encyclopedia. DF24 then engaged in years of editwarring and campaigning against it and against the idea that consensus existed for it, beginning May 2009 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style&diff=prev&oldid=293155593] (and see, e.g., most of the entire history of [[WT:MOSFAQ]], which an admin did determine was editwarring when I made a "slow editwarring" complaint [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&diff=next&oldid=679090830]; and the history of LQ/TQ debate at MOS, logged in [[MOS:REGISTER]]). All this despite having conceded again, also in May 2009, that WP had in fact made this decision, and that it was neither American nor British in particular. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&diff=prev&oldid=293453972], and in the same month that "I agree ... specifically that ... the consensus for changing Wikipedia's policy [''sic''] has not yet been met." [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&diff=prev&oldid=293541290], reiterated later almost word-for-word [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&diff=prev&oldid=293836784], and followed with an "imperative" instruction in the MoS about it written by DF24 personally [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&diff=prev&oldid=294178096]. The editor reversed on this later and consistently denied that there was consensus for it, and tried to equate LQ and BQ for years. [I could provide a diff-farm of this here, almost as long as this page is already.] DF24 finally, in Nov. 2015, conceded again that consensus exists in favor of LQ [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AManual_of_Style&type=revision&diff=693212120&oldid=693211280]: {{tq|"you know how I hate WP:LQ but if someone asked if there was consensus for it, I could point to many pages in the archive that have discussions and RfCs, some with formal closure."}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AManual_of_Style&type=revision&diff=693212120&oldid=693211280]. I'm skeptical that the editwarring over this will stop, however. |
|||
* Amazingly, DF24 says of another editor on this matter, also against LQ, {{tq|'However, I don't think that [said editor] has "abandoned" American style so much as that he is able to accept a guideline even if he doesn't like it, a very useful ability on a site like this one.'}} Then proceeds for years to do the exact opposite of this good advice. |
|||
* That this is has been a personal, emotional campaign for this editor has been explicitly admitted multiple times over several years, establishing that this is a long-term [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]] and [[WP:CIVILPOV]] / "slow-editwar" problem: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AManual_of_Style&type=revision&diff=693212120&oldid=693211280] Further evidence of this is refusal to acknowledge that the community is tired of the dispute and that it must continue until DF24 gets the desired answer. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&diff=prev&oldid=294180131] |
|||
** 2015-11: {{tq|"you know how I hate WP:LQ"}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AManual_of_Style&type=revision&diff=693212120&oldid=693211280] |
|||
** 2009-05-31" {{tq|"I most certainly have not abandoned proper American punctuation. ... I am as stout an advocate of American punctuation as ever."}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&diff=prev&oldid=293540770]; cf. [[WP:NOT#ADVOCACY]]. |
|||
** Several more could be included, but this need not be every possible diff; some of us have encyclopedia work to do, after all. |
|||
* Central to this problem with DF24 is that's it's a territorial dispute. The editor propounds that the important thing with punctuation matters is that editors "feel as if they were being given their due, their proper domain plus original articles." [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&diff=prev&oldid=293836784] This is an argument for [[WP:LOCALCONSENSUS]] by wikiprojects, and directly individual control by [[WP:VESTED]] editors, and is against [[WP:5P]], [[WP:OWN]] policy, the [[WP:5PILLARS]], and a number of [[WP:ARBCOM]] cases. |
|||
* In May 2009, Darkfrog24 conceded that the style editor calls "American" is known as "typesetters' quotation" and inserted that name personally into MoS [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style&diff=next&oldid=293155909], also noting that nationalistic terms "tick [people] off" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&diff=prev&oldid=293155119]. Then proceeded for years to push nationalistic terminology and approaches to such matters. |
|||
* Darkfrog's campaign against the {{em|name}} ''logical quotation'' (which appears in RS) dates to May 2009: {{tq|"Let's dispel some of this idea that American punctuation is illogical"}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style&diff=next&oldid=293155909], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&diff=prev&oldid=293179834], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&diff=prev&oldid=293422537], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&diff=next&oldid=293422537] an idea that isn't even asserted by this name and was not stated in the guideline, making it a [[straw man]] (the "logical" refers to the logic of the sentence structure, not whether a reader will determine an alternative style "illogical"). DF24 persists in advancing their view even when it is refuted; in the face of a turnabout-is-fair-play demand for sources for this viewpoint, DF24 simply asserts "it's a pretty reasonable assumption to make" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&diff=prev&oldid=293625372]. |
|||
* This is also the beginning of DF24's IDHT problem on this topic; the editor begins to engage in [[proof by assertion]], simply restating the same claim over and over again without addressing any rebuttal of it. A similar pattern is denying that things have been discussed before when they obviously have [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&diff=prev&oldid=293455114]; refusing to address refutations, saying they've already been addressed in another section when they have not [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&diff=prev&oldid=293589135]; and practicing a [[WP:FILIBUSTER]] / [[WP:STONEWALL]] approach to MOS matters, demanding again and again that every previous consensus be "proven" with links to prior discussions, then forgetting this "evidence" the next time the issue comes up and restarting with the same already-disproved arguments. [I could provide another shipload of diffs here, if needed.] This is pointless, since stable wording on a matter in any guideline is already sufficient evidence that it has consensus, which it takes a strong new consensus to overturn, per [[WP:CCC]]. |
|||
* Darkfrog24 has been inserting provably false statements into MOS and related pages about logical vs. typesetters' quotation, changing correct statement to bogus [[WP:NPOV|PoV]] and [[WP:NOR|OR]] positions, since May 2009 as well. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quotation_marks_in_English&diff=prev&oldid=293157238], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style&diff=prev&oldid=293158327], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style&diff=prev&oldid=293158760], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&diff=prev&oldid=293196236], etc., and revert-warring to reinsert it when others object and remove it [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style&diff=prev&oldid=293163821], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style&diff=prev&oldid=294780610], even after DF24 acknowledged being reverted [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&diff=prev&oldid=293188722]; denied edit warring when warned against persisting in it [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Darkfrog24&diff=prev&oldid=293193136]. The large number of one-sided edits made by this editor were during, and not reflective of, ongoing, then-unresolved discussion [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&oldid=293610782#Punctuation:_Quotation_marks:_Inside_or_outside]. (The entire section in MoS itself was reverted to ''status quo ante'' and the page temporarily protected against further editwarring.) Old news, but illustrative of a pattern that has not changed in almost 7 years. The most blatant example is flat-out denial that other sources contract DF24's cherry-picked position based only on American sources in particular fields [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&diff=prev&oldid=294701929], even after sources have been provided by others in the month-long debate that lead up that comment. Whatever DF24 doesn't agree with is "wrong", and the editor makes false claims that sources don't support the opposed style [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&diff=prev&oldid=294786652] even after admitting that they do earlier, even considering to insist it's "wrong" after re-admitting there are sources [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&diff=prev&oldid=294788022], then settling on the false position that LQ is recognized by virtually no sources and using this to suggest that MoS has to be sourced while other policypages do not [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&diff=prev&oldid=294792078], an argument that wouldn't make sense even if it were based on facts. This false assertion that "almost every English-language style manual" agrees with DF24 is repeated like a mantra [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&diff=prev&oldid=294813834]. |
|||
* Far worse, Darkfrog24 immediately began inserting the same PoV and OR nonsense {{em|into actual article content}}. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quotation_marks_in_English&type=revision&diff=293157238&oldid=292218286], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quotation_marks_in_English&diff=next&oldid=293157238], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quotation_marks_in_English&type=revision&diff=326547198&oldid=325152942] |
|||
* Original research not supported in sources: Darkfrog24 made up and wanted Wikipedia to use the pseudo-name "stop rule" for logical quotation (it's in one of the diffs above already) and then suggested we come up with another neologism for the allegedly "American" quotation style, proposing "consistent" punctuation [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&diff=prev&oldid=293186726], then "the typographical system or the comma-inside system" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&diff=prev&oldid=293424146]. (It would be OK for WP to use any terminology it wanted in an internal document, but this demonstrates that the editor applies a double standard, engaging in OR when it suits their whims, and campaigning against it doing so is convenient.) |
|||
* DF24 concedes that punctuation is intuitive and subjective [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&diff=prev&oldid=293241259], but proceeds with years of [[WP:LAWYER]]-style rulebook-thumping about such matters anyway, despite consistent consensus agains this approach. |
|||
* To their credit, DF24 first starts using external sources {{em|to inform consensus discussion in talk}} (though without actually citing them) on 30 May 2009 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&diff=prev&oldid=293309948]. |
|||
* Darkfrog24 recognized that LQ and British quotation styles are different at least as early as 3 June 2009 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quotation_marks_in_English&diff=next&oldid=293319451], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&diff=prev&oldid=293453972], and continued to edit to ensure this was understood [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&diff=prev&oldid=294788981], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&diff=prev&oldid=294796380] well into 2010 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quotation_marks_in_English&type=revision&diff=341133334&oldid=339821961]: {{tq|"BQ is not the same as LQ. BQ concerns itself with the grammatical stop and LQ does not. Let's give LQ its own paragraph."}} Even conceded finding RS that say so [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&diff=prev&oldid=293509408], and tried to lecture all incoming editors about this fact in June 2009 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&diff=prev&oldid=294071315]. Yet the editor later pursued an editwarring and IDHT pattern against this already-acknowledged fact (starting around here [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&diff=prev&oldid=294194284], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&diff=prev&oldid=294194460], when they began to conflate the styles and only grudgingly recognized any difference between them, perhaps owing to the rise in [[Fear, uncertainty and doubt|FUD]] about LQ among editors when this confusion was introduced and pushed. This anti-LQ agenda was pushed across WP guidelines, WP article text, and even Wikitionary text. [This is another point for which I could provide a huge pile of additional diffs.] |
|||
* DF24 concedes LQ was created for technical reasons [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&diff=prev&oldid=293626110], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&diff=prev&oldid=294791209] [which is only partly true, since it's used in textual criticism, linguistics, and other fields], and that WP should write for its audience and subject matter [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&diff=prev&oldid=293626110]. The need to ensure quotation accuracy [per textual criticism] is the primary rationale behind LQ on WP, and obviously there is consensus on and off WP that it serves these needs better than any other approach, yet DF24 continued to rail against it; despite understanding the general rationale, the editor persists in denying that the specific one exists, as evidenced here [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&diff=prev&oldid=293780439], no matter how many times the quotation accuracy point is explained. To DF24, an article being about "George Washington or the American Civil War" should be punctuated the way major American style guides would do it, regardless of other considerations including those that have long-standing consensus, regarding how WP should format content, for reasons that rarely have to do with national sentiments. |
|||
* DF24 repeatedly asserts and understands that MoS is an internal guideline providing instructions to editors, and should be written in the imperative, and is not a descriptive linguistic work, e.g.: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&diff=prev&oldid=294178096] But only when it's suites DF24's arguments. Other times, their arguments are claims about usage off of WP, which "must" be sourced. Another double-standard, and the primary cause of all this disruption. |
|||
* Early observation by someone that one editor having a problem with one line-item is a guideline does not equate to a legitimate dispute [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&diff=prev&oldid=294194857]. DF persisted in dispute-tagging MoS itself. |
|||
* Excessive deference to [US] government style? E.g., DF24 considered the government to be "the source!" on how to style the word "laser" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&diff=prev&oldid=294699039], a classic example of this editor's refusal to accept that WP determines how WP will style things. This cognitive dissonance is recurrent: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&diff=prev&oldid=294706352], among many other examples that could be diffed here. |
|||
* DF24 Attempted to unilaterally and radically alter MoS's advice on LQ, on 6 June 2009: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style&diff=prev&oldid=294700574], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style&diff=next&oldid=294700574], despite a month+ of total failure to gain consensus for any of these changes. Revert-warred [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style&diff=prev&oldid=294780610] to reinstate these non-consensus changes after multiple editors objected to various of their numerous points. |
|||
* 2015-06-06 – DF begins extending this "source the MoS" stuff to other, though related, MoS topics [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&diff=prev&oldid=294706352]. |
|||
* 2012-10 – 2010-02 – Protracted editwarring by DF24 at [[Quotation marks in English]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quotation_marks_in_English&action=history&year=2010&month=2&] |
|||
* DF24 is aware that the LQ debate is already ''perennial'' as of June 2009 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&diff=prev&oldid=294236636] but has pursued the matter continually since then anyway. |
|||
* The kind of inappropriate confusion introduced by trying to "source the MoS" has been pointed out to DF24 since 2009 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&diff=prev&oldid=294714288] but simply falls on deaf ears. |
|||
* DF24 has been made aware that what external sources are doing is not the basis of WP's guidelines since at least 6 June 2009 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&diff=prev&oldid=294768652]. Multiple editors point out that it this "source the MOS" nonsense waters down the guideline as such, and they provide rationales for this view [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&diff=prev&oldid=294768652], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&diff=prev&oldid=294799829], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&diff=prev&oldid=294740256]. DF24 simply engages in a IDHT and [[proof by assertion]] tactic of "no it doesn't" without addressing the objections (though re-introducing OR falsehoods) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&diff=prev&oldid=294773443], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&diff=prev&oldid=294813834], a pattern maintained all the way up to 2016. |
|||
* A major problem with DF24's approach is a third double standard: sources the editor likes give {{em|rules}} that are absolute and "correct" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Darkfrog24&diff=next&oldid=696384745], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Darkfrog24&diff=next&oldid=696441736], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&diff=prev&oldid=294791209], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&diff=prev&oldid=294814524], while everything else is just an opinion, convention, option, or variation. This is the use of [[prescriptive grammar]] absolutism to approach favored sources but [[linguistic description]] relativism against those the editor opposes, akin to advancing creationist views to win one argument, and evolutionary ones to get their way in another. DF24 does not even appear to understand the nature of objections to this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&diff=prev&oldid=294817698], and reverts to the IDHT and circular-assertion strategy [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&diff=prev&oldid=294823254], the exact same one used again and again (mostly recently in ongoing 2016-01 disputes, and those in 2015-09). |
|||
* Even after understanding, and editing to make others understand, the difference between LQ and BQ, and that LQ is reliably sourced, DF24 never lets go of the perspective that it is "wrong", "incorrect", "erroneous", once the editor decided to run with this PoV [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&diff=prev&oldid=294822843]. |
|||
* DF24 asserts there is "correct" English and that anything [that DF24 thinks] qualifies should be permitted; does not recognize consensus to have guidelines for/against particular usage. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&diff=next&oldid=294775396] Oh, except that a large proportion of DF24's edits to MOS itself over the last several years have been to change flexible and advisory wording into emphatic "do"/"do not" commandments on points about which DF24 feels strongly, almost always without discussion. See this dozen or so cases, among probably hundreds by now [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style&offset=20151231140751&action=history]. |
|||
* DF24 is very well aware that injecting tangential side matters into a debate has a strong tendency to derail it [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&diff=prev&oldid=294900984], yet frequently uses this stonewalling tactic. |
|||
* Only the sources that DF24 reads are considered valid by this editor [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&diff=prev&oldid=294823456], even though we know that LQ is used frequently in various disciplines, in journals, books and online sources that DF24 apparently doesn't read. |
|||
* As early as 2008, DF24 conceded that MoS's wording is determined by consensus [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&diff=prev&oldid=294727879]. Yet the editing pattern since then has been a consistent BATTLEGROUND against this consensus, even to the point of warping article coverage in an attempt to [[WP:WIN]]. |
|||
* It started that same year: DF24 denies that MoS decisions can be based on anything but external sources (or, when they don't matter, taste). [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&diff=prev&oldid=294847700] In reality, consensus considers many other factors in determining guidelines like MoS, the most common of which is reader utility. |
|||
* As of late 2015: still refuses to accept that consensus determines guidelines, or that they may advise anything not found in at least one external source [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&diff=prev&oldid=693362744]. This is completely irrational, since no external source can address WP-unique concerns and circumstances. |
|||
{{collapse bottom}} |
|||
=== Five years of Darkfrog24 slow-editwarring at MOS:FAQ === |
|||
{{strong|1=This behavior at [[WT:MOSFAQ]] ([[MOS:FAQ]]) has already been administratively determined to be editwarring, and was recommended for AE action to put a stop to it [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&diff=next&oldid=679090830].}} |
|||
The above is all part and parcel of a pattern of very long-term "slow editwarring" against the consensus for and about logical quotation. Instead, the editor has been allowed to redouble their efforts by taking the exact same approach at [[MOS:SUPPORTS]], the locus of the newest incident with this editor on this topic. |
|||
These recurrent spates of intense activism activity are reflections of the same editor's five-year editwar against all comers at MOSFAQ, where Darkfrog24 has used a strategy of "win by never giving up". The page presently reflects DF24's views, because everyone else simply gave up and went back to editing the encyclopedia, resigned to DF24 [[WP:OWN]]ing the page. |
|||
{{collapse top|left=y|title=Diffs of DF24 using "slow-editwar" at MOSFAQ for years to ...}} |
|||
* try to turn MOS's own FAQ into a rallying point for "challenging MOS" to get "satisfaction": [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/FAQ&diff=next&oldid=665978668] and is insistent about it [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/FAQ&diff=prev&oldid=675627821] over objections. |
|||
* get rid of or sow confusion about the terms "logical quotation" and "typesetters' quotation", either by hiding them entirely or by editwarring-in "British style" and "American style", respectively, to confuse the distinctions and to support the editor's campaign to undo logical quotation on WP as somehow "anti-American": [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/FAQ&diff=next&oldid=675649798] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/FAQ&diff=next&oldid=665968683] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/FAQ&diff=prev&oldid=648850762] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/FAQ&diff=next&oldid=433540635] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/FAQ&diff=next&oldid=675627821] |
|||
* and/or try to paint this as not a matter of well-sourced facts, but just as the opinion that some editors have arrived at: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/FAQ&diff=next&oldid=338183903] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/FAQ&diff=next&oldid=338390166] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/FAQ&diff=next&oldid=335738920] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/FAQ&diff=next&oldid=335988586] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/FAQ&diff=next&oldid=336475107], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/FAQ&diff=next&oldid=336707781] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/FAQ&diff=next&oldid=337968507] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/FAQ&diff=next&oldid=338110833] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/FAQ&diff=next&oldid=338126699] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/FAQ&diff=next&oldid=437233427] (note denigration of counter-arguments as "stupid") |
|||
* and/or pursue this "victory" tactic relentlessly after multiple editors object, as here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/FAQ&diff=next&oldid=336128211] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/FAQ&diff=prev&oldid=336115589] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/FAQ&diff=next&oldid=336344411] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/FAQ&diff=next&oldid=336555321] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/FAQ&diff=next&oldid=337892825] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/FAQ&diff=next&oldid=337998610] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/FAQ&diff=next&oldid=338125433] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/FAQ&diff=next&oldid=338185290] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/FAQ&diff=next&oldid=675217150], including our attempts to compromise [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/FAQ&diff=next&oldid=675628459]. |
|||
{{collapse bottom}} |
|||
=== Darkfrog24's disruptive disputation pattern === |
|||
I won't call it a discussion pattern; it's actually anti-discussion, a form of [[Handwave|handwaving]] and "[[proof by verbosity]]", drowning objections by generating a text-wall of both DF24's re-re-re-repeated assertions and other editors' good faith attempts to refute them. |
|||
This pattern looks the same in every debate of this sort involving DF24, and it it goes like this: |
|||
:A: DF24 makes a claim, based on belief and OR (and usually shoe-horned extraneously into a discussion only tangentially related to what DF24 wants to campaign about). |
|||
::B: Other editor(s) provide a refutation (with sources and facts, not opinion/belief) |
|||
:::A: DF24 ignores refutations, states something else unrelated, and restates original claim as if unaddressed, then usually raises a distracting quibble about some minor thing the other(s) said, while dodging every single substantive point. |
|||
::::B: The other(s) provide a second refutation, and address the handwaving, too. |
|||
:::::A: DF24 makes an accusation, restates both claims, and dismisses refutations, saying they were already rebutted, but they have never been addressed at all, then insisting that the other party provide "sources" (in an internal consensus discussion about WP matters), while providing none themselves but material already refuted as OR. |
|||
::::::B: The other editor(s) patiently refute all of this, and by now the thread is very long. |
|||
:A: DF24 injects the original claim again in a new thread (or raises it anew on another page, or even on a different WMF project), and states it as a known fact, not debatable. |
|||
::B: Other(s) object that this has already been refuted and is off-topic or forum shopping to inject here, and object to tendentiousness, circular reasoning, and OR. |
|||
:::A: DF24 accuses other(s) of bad faith, attacks, bullying, etc.; re-asserts claim, re-adds the second claim, and makes up a third, unrelated one, too, and cites sources that do not actually say what DF24 claims. |
|||
::::B. Other(s) point out that this stuff was already refuted, but try yet again in good faith to address the arguments just in case DF24 just didn't understand it the last time, and in case anyone new to the topic is fooled by the OR. |
|||
:A. DF24 keep this pattern going as long as possible ... |
|||
::B. Others keep trying in good faith to address the issues raised ... |
|||
:::etc. ... |
|||
:...until everyone is sick of it all. Nothing is resolved, and DF24 starts it up all over again a day, a week, a month, a year later. |
|||
DF's [not very] secret technique is injecting their claim into the discussion and starting this snowball of verbal diarrh[o]ea whenever anyone {{em|else}} mentions something that provides as opportunity to inject DF24's pet peeve again: "I haven't started a thread challenging WP:LQ in years. The last time I brought up LQ at all without someone else challenging it first was when ..." [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Darkfrog24&diff=next&oldid=697491825] – thereby maybe deflecting any notice and criticism of tendentiousness. Essentially the same thing is repeated [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=700548150 here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FEnforcement&type=revision&diff=700585718&oldid=700580726 here]. And note that DF24 interprets any question about LQ, or quotation marks in general as "a challenge" by someone to consensus, when it it usually is not, but is just a query or idea. The editor even takes pains to stress this "knight in shining purely defensive armor" fantasy [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FEnforcement&type=revision&diff=700550362&oldid=700548150]. In reality, people {{em|mention}} the matter periodically, but one and only one editor launches into torrential floods of die-hard activism about it. DF24 even thinks that as long as they quiet down periodically only to resume the same behavior again later, over and over again, that this isn't tendentious: "I don't campaign incessantly. I cease all the time." [4 diffs back]. The editor even recently attempted to recruit an innocent new editor to launch an RfC on DF24's pet issue [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADarkfrog24&type=revision&diff=696385953&oldid=696384745], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Darkfrog24&diff=next&oldid=696409354] – a brazen human shield / CYA maneuver. That editor wisely did not take the bait: "I desperately need peace of mind right now to be able to work on articles without a lot of drama." [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Darkfrog24&diff=next&oldid=696412629] DF24 calls it a "rant" when this behavior is criticized, and blanks it [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Darkfrog24&diff=next&oldid=697579151]. |
|||
=== Summary === |
|||
DF24 espouses a preconceived GREATWRONGS view about this and many other English style and usage matters, and states there "is" only one "correct" way to approach things like quotation mark style, at a national level, despite no actual evidence in support of such a notion, which flies in the face of linguistics. It's a Victorian-era [[prescriptive grammar]] position, common to K–12 pedagogy and community colleges (and I strongly suspect this is DF24's professional background, from various teaching-related hints dropped), but is not defensible with academic literature. In short, it's a faith-based position of subjective and tradition-based preference, that sweeps aside all rational considerations in pursuit of some kind of Truth (a highly patrioticized one in your case). The incessant "campaigning" flavor DF24 brings to this matter has been very disruptive, over a long period of time. |
|||
This pattern is combined with a habit of equating criticism of one of their ideas or behaviors, with criticism of their personality or their value as a person. This is coupled with a frequent and hypocritical veiled assumption of bad faith. Most commonly, it's a refusal to accept any argument, even in a consensus discussion with no connection to mainspace, without "proof" in sources DF24 can already access themself for free and conveniently. I.e. an accusation that the other party is lying, stupid, or insane, but hidden behind unctuous language and misapplication of [[WP:CCPOL]] to places it does not pertain. Since the sources are already available and DF24 has already seen them, this is obviously a form of [[WP:GAMING]]. Whatever the conscious intent (I allege no motivations, and find the entire matter quite perplexing, especially all the apparent but improbable inability to follow basic reasoning when the editor does not exhibit this behavior when not being challenged on something), in effect it is a way to stall, filibuster, and mire discussion in circular demands and debate to prevent things moving forward in ways that don't lead to what DF24 advocates. |
|||
<span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span>, 10:51, 20 January 2016 <small>[moved 15:14, 26 January 2016 (UTC)]</small> |
|||
{{discussion bottom}} |
Latest revision as of 14:21, 12 April 2016
SMcCandlish's ArbCom evidence relating to Darkfrog24 (as used instead at the "Dicklyon and Darkfrog24" AE request)
– WP:POLEMIC prohibits this being kept forever in my userspace, but it's among the evidence relied upon in the "Dicklyon and Darkfrog24" request, so needs to be preserved somewhere. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 15:14, 26 January 2016 (UTC)